PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.

RAUL BERIBER y FUENTES @

JERRY FUENTES y IGNACIO @ GERRY BERIBER @ BONG @ RAUL FUENTES,
Appellant.
2012-08-29 | G.R. No. 195243
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is an appeal from the Decision1 dated July 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01623, which affirmed with modification the Judgment2 dated July 7, 2005 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, San Pablo City, finding appellant Raul Beriber y Fuentes @Jerry Fuentes
y Ignacio@ Gerry Beriber@ Bong@ Raul Fuentes, guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
On March 22, 2001, a Second Amended Information3 was filed before the RTC of San Pablo City
charging appellant of Robbery with Homicide.4
The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about October 3, 2000, in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent to gain, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously enter the premises of SPOUSES HENRY and MA. LOURDES
VERGARA, located at Brgy. San Cristobal, this city, and once inside and finding an opportune time, did
then and there take, steal and carry away cash money amounting to P 2,000.00, Philippine Currency,
belonging to said Spouses Henry and Ma. Lourdes Vergara, by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons and by reason of or on the occasion of said robbery, said accused attacked and stabbed to
death his immediate employer Ma. Lourdes Vergara with a bladed weapon with which the accused was
then conveniently provided, thereby inflicting wounds upon the person of said Ma. Lourdes Vergara
which caused her immediate death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
When arraigned on April 17, 2001, appellant, with the assistance of a counsel de oficio, entered a plea of
not guilty.6
Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The evidence for the prosecution is aptly summarized by the Solicitor General in the Appellee's Brief as
follows:
The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, as well as documentary evidence to prove its case.
The first witness for the prosecution was Dr. Lucy Andal Celino (Celino), the physician who examined the
remains of the victim, Lourdes Vergara. Celino is the Health Officer of San Pablo City. She testified that
she conducted a necropsy of the victim on October 3, 2000 at 4:15 p.m., and that she prepared a
Necropsy Report which states that the victim died of shock and hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab
wounds all over her body, some of which damaged her heart, lungs, and liver. Celino also stated that the
location of stab wounds, abrasions and lacerations on the victim's body indicated that the latter struggled

against her killer. The physician added that the perpetrator used two kinds of instruments in inflicting
wounds on the victim: a sharp-pointed instrument and a pointed rounded instrument.
On cross-examination, Celino confirmed that the wounds sustained by the victim were inflicted using two
different pointed instruments.
The prosecution also presented police officer Armando Demejes (Demejes), who testified that while he
was on duty on October 3, 2000, he went to the house of Henry Vergara (Henry) in Barangay San
Cristobal, San Pablo City to investigate a stabbing incident which occurred thereat.
When Demejes arrived at the scene of the crime, Vergara informed him that his wife, Lourdes, was
stabbed to death. Demejes entered the house and saw a cadaver lying on a bamboo bed. He also
looked around the house and saw that the place was in disarray. In the sala, about five to six meters
away from the corpse, was an open drawer containing coins, and on the floor near the said drawer were
more coins. Another drawer was pulled out from its original location and left on a couch. Demejes
likewise found a blue tote bag on top of the center of the table and a passbook on top of the bed. He also
saw that the door leading to the stairs was open. Demejes prepared a sketch of the crime scene to
document what he saw during his investigation.
Thereafter, the prosecution presented Neville Bomiel (Bomiel), a resident of Barangay San Cristobal,
San Pablo City. Bomiel testified that he had known the appellant for less than a month prior to October 3,
2000. He knew that the appellant was working for the Vergaras and resided at the latter's rice mill.
Bomiel recalled that while he was standing in front of his house in the morning of October 3, 2000, at
around 10:00 a.m., he saw the appellant leave the house of the Vergaras and walk towards the direction
of the school. When appellant passed by Bomiel's house, he asked appellant where the latter was going.
Appellant replied that he was on his way to Batangas for medical treatment. Bomiel noticed that
appellant was wearing a yellow collared t-shirt, blue denims, and shoes. Later, he saw appellant return to
the house of the Vergaras and enter the place. Afterwards, appellant left the house and passed by
Bomiel's residence a second time. Bomiel again greeted the appellant and asked him why he (appellant)
had not yet left for Batangas. Appellant replied that he was still waiting for Henry. Appellant again
proceeded to the direction of the school. Subsequently, Bomiel saw the appellant return to the house of
the Vergaras a third time. That was the last time Bomiel saw him. Bomiel observed that on that day,
appellant looked restless. ("balisa at hindi mapakali.")
The fourth witness for the prosecution, Rolando Aquino (Aquino), likewise a resident of Barangay San
Cristobal, San Pablo City, testified that he had known appellant for less than a month on October 3, 2000.
He knew the appellant was hired by the Vergaras as a helper in their rice mill.
In the morning of October 3, 2000, Aquino was able to talk to the appellant at the house of a certain Lola
Rosy, the victim's mother. Appellant told Aquino that he was going to Batangas that day for medical
treatment. Thereafter, appellant, then wearing short pants and a t-shirt with cut-off sleeves, left the
house of Lola Rosy to go [to] the rice mill. At around 8:30 a.m., Aquino again saw appellant at Lola
Rosy's house, but appellant was already wearing a mint green-colored shirt and khaki pants. Aquino
asked appellant why he had not yet left, but the latter did not answer and appeared restless. Later that
morning, at around 11:30 a.m., Aquino learned that Lourdes had been killed. He rushed to the house of
the Vergaras and saw the victim lying on a bamboo bed, drenched in blood. Aquino then noticed that the
appellant's personal belongings which were kept by the appellant underneath the bamboo bed were no
longer there. He further testified that he did not see appellant return to San Cristobal after October 3,
2000.
Henry Vergara also testified before the trial court. He said that he and the victim hired appellant as a

helper in their rice mill in September 2000. Appellant slept in the house of Henry's mother-in-law, Rosy,
but kept his personal belongings in their house (the Vergaras house), specifically under the bamboo bed
where Lourdes' corpse was discovered on October 3, 2000 at past 11:00 a.m.
At around 5:30 in the morning of October 3, 2000, appellant asked Henry for permission to go to
Batangas. Henry asked appellant to fetch a certain Junjun to be his replacement as Henry's helper in
their store in Dolores, Quezon that day. Henry left their house in San Cristobal at 6:00 a.m. to tend their
store in Quezon and stayed in the store until 11:00 a.m. before heading back home.
When he arrived at their house in San Cristobal, he noticed that the door was slightly open. He called for
Lourdes, but nobody answered. He immediately entered their house and saw that the door of their rice
mill was closed. This caused him to suspect that something was wrong. He then noticed that coins were
scattered on the floor. He proceeded to the kitchen and saw Lourdes lying on the bamboo bed, lifeless
and bloodied in the chest and stomach areas.
Henry thereafter ran to the house of his brother-in-law, Wanito Avanzado (Avanzado), who also resided
in San Cristobal. Henry told Avanzado that Lourdes was already dead. Avanzado then ran to the house
of the Vergaras.
Henry recalled that before he left for their store in Quezon that day, he left appellant, his wife and their
children in their house. He also remembered that cash amounting to Two Thousand Pesos (P 2,000.00)
was left inside the drawer in their rice mill. However, when he looked for the money after he discovered
that his wife was killed, he could no longer find it.
Henry also testified that he did not see the appellant in their house when he went home from Quezon
and that appellant's personal effects were no longer under the bamboo bed where appellant used to
keep them. He did not see appellant anymore after he left their house on October 3, 2000.
Lastly, the prosecution presented as witness Avanzado, the brother of the victim. Avanzado testified that
at around 11:00 a.m. on October 3, 2000, he saw his brother-in-law, Henry, running towards his
(Avanzado's) house and shouting "Si Aloy", the victim's nickname. He ran to the house of the Vergaras
and saw his sister's bloodied body on the bamboo bed.
Avanzado tried to lift her body, but her neck was already stiff. After he was sure that Lourdes was indeed
dead, he called up the police and requested them to investigate the incident. When the police arrived,
they took pictures of the crime scene and conducted an investigation.
Avanzado further stated that he knew that the appellant was a helper of the Vergaras. He said that he
was told by several residents of San Cristobal that they saw appellant leaving the scene of the crime with
a bag.
He also narrated that as Barangay Chairman of San Cristobal, he coordinated with the police for the
apprehension of the appellant. Avanzado went with some police officers to Talisay, Batangas to search
for appellant in the house of his uncle, but appellant was not there. Later, Avanzado received information
that appellant was apprehended in Capiz, but was released by police authorities because the latter were
worried that they would be charged with illegal detention. Avanzado then sought the assistance of the
staff of Kabalikat, a program aired by the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Company. Appellant was subsequently
apprehended and brought back to San Pablo City to face the charge against him.7
Except for Dr. Celino, the defense waived its right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
Appellant's counsel further waived the presentation of evidence.8 Both parties failed to file their

respective memoranda despite being ordered to do so; thus, the RTC resolved the case on the basis of
the evidence presented by the prosecution.
On October 22, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision,9 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds accused RAUL
BERIBER y FUENTES @ JERRY FUENTES y IGNACIO @ GERRY BERIBER @ "Bong", @ "Raul
Fuentes" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide defined and penalized
under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced the supreme and capital
penalty of DEATH, with costs.
He is further sentenced to pay the heirs of the deceased:
a) the sum of P 50,000.00 as death indemnity;
b) the sum of P 2,000.00 representing the stolen cash;
c) the sum of P 200,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; and
d) the sum of P 100,000.00 representing burial and other incidental expenses of the victim.
SO ORDERED.10
The case was then elevated to us on automatic review. However, in a Decision11 dated June 8, 2004,
we had set aside the Judgment of the RTC and remanded the case to the same court for further
proceedings. The fallo of our Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32, in Criminal Case
No. 12621-SP (00), is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE, and the case REMANDED to said court for its
proper disposition, including the conduct of further appropriate proceedings and the reception of
evidence. For this purpose, the proper law enforcement officers are directed to TRANSFER appellant
RAUL BERIBER y FUENTES from the New Bilibid Prison where he is presently committed to the BJMP
Jail in San Pablo City, with adequate security escort, where he shall be DETAINED for the duration of
the proceedings in the trial court.
The Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32 is directed to dispose of the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.12
In compliance, the RTC scheduled the case for hearing. On July 27, 2004, appellant's same counsel
submitted a Manifestation that the defense is again waiving its right not to adduce evidence and with
appellant's conformity. On August 10, 2004, appellant's counsel reiterated her manifestation. The RTC
then ordered to place appellant on the stand, wherein appellant stood firm not to present any evidence
for his defense.13
The RTC then forwarded to us the transcripts and the records of the proceedings held on August 10,
2004. In a Resolution14 dated January 18,2005, we ordered the RTC to render its decision on the case
based on the evidence that had been presented.
On July 7, 2005, the RTC rendered a Judgment convicting appellant of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide based on circumstantial evidence, the dispositive portion which reads:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds accused RAUL
BERIBER y FUENTES @ JERRY FUENTES y IGNACIO @ GERRY BERIBER @ "Bong," @ "Raul
Fuentes" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide defined and penalized
under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and considering the absence of any aggravating
circumstance which merits the imposition of the maximum penalty of death, and conformably with Article
63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties
and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
penalty shall be applied, accused RAUL BERIBER y FUENTES @ JERRY FUENTES y IGNACIO @
GERRY BERIBER @ "Bong," @ "Raul Fuentes" is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA with costs.
He is further sentenced to pay the heirs of the deceased:
a) the sum of P 50,000.00 as death indemnity;
b) the sum of P 2,000.00 representing the stolen cash;
c) the sum of P 200,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; and
d) the sum of P 100,000.00 representing burial and other incidental expenses of the victim.
SO ORDERED.15
In so ruling, the RTC enumerated the pieces of circumstantial evidence which established appellant's
culpability for the crime charged, to wit:
x x x 1. accused was at the locus criminis at around the time of the stabbing incident; 2. witnesses
testified seeing him at the scene of the crime going in and going out of the house of the victim at the time
of the perpetration of the crime; 3. accused, in his own admission mentioned that he was going to
Batangas for medical treatment, however, when the policemen, together with the Barangay Chairman
went to Talisay, Batangas where he lives, he was nowhere to be found; 4. immediately after the incident,
the witnesses and the offended party noticed that all his clothes kept underneath the bamboo bed where
the victim was found sprouted with blood were all gone because he took everything with him although his
intention was merely for medical treatment in Batangas; 5. he mentioned that he was then still waiting for
Kuya Henry, husband of Lourdes, when he had already a talk with Henry Vergara that he will go to
Batangas for medical treatment that did not materialize; 6. after the killing incident, accused simply
disappeared and did not return anymore; 7. when he was confronted by Henry Vergara concerning the
killing, he could not talk to extricate himself from the accusation; and 8. that he has been using several
aliases to hide his true identity.16
Appellant filed his appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Solicitor General filed his Appellee's Brief
praying that except for the modification of the damages awarded, the RTC decision be affirmed.
On July 9, 2010, the CA issued the assailed Decision, which affirmed with modification the RTC decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Judgment dated July 7, 2005 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 32 of San Pablo City in Criminal Case No. 12621-SP (00) finding Raul Beriber y
Fuentes, @ Jerry Fuentes y Ignacio, @ Gerry Beriber, @ "Bong,"@ "Raul Fuentes" GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA is

hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that the damages to be awarded the heirs of Ma.
Lourdes Vergara shall be: a) P 50,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) P 2,000.00 as actual damages; c) P
25,000.00 as temperate damages; and d) P 50,000.00 as moral damages.17
Appellant filed his Appeal with us. In a Resolution18 dated March 9, 2011, we required the parties to file
their respective Supplemental Briefs, if they so desire. Both parties filed their Manifestations stating that
they were dispensing with the filing of Supplemental Briefs as their Briefs earlier filed were sufficient.19
Appellant's lone assignment of error alleges that:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME
CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.20
Appellant contends that to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that
robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime which was not
established in this case. He argues that the eight (8) circumstantial evidence found by the RTC can be
summarized into two circumstances, i.e., (1) the appellant was at the scene of the crime at
approximately the same time that the crime was committed; and (2) that he fled the locus criminis
thereafter. He claims that the first circumstance cannot be taken against him, since it is natural for him to
be at the victim's house as he resides therein. As to the second circumstance, appellant claims that
witnesses even testified that he told them that he was going to Batangas for a medical check-up, thus,
the finding that he fled the crime scene is a conclusion without sufficient basis; and that assuming he
indeed escaped and flight be an indication of guilt, such circumstance is not enough to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
We find no merit in the appeal.
The crime for which appellant was charged and convicted was robbery with homicide. It is a special
complex crime against property.21
Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the
robbery. In charging Robbery with Homicide, the onus probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c)
the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed.22
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence to establish appellant's commission of the crime charged.
However, direct evidence is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt.23 At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct
testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the
community.24 Thus, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court on circumstantial evidence
requires the concurrence of the following: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. We have ruled that
circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proven constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.25
We agree with the RTC as affirmed by the CA that the circumstantial evidence proven by the prosecution
sufficiently establishes that appellant committed the offense charged.

The prosecution had established that around 6:00 a.m. of October 3, 2000, Henry went to his store in
Dolores, Quezon, leaving his wife (the victim) and appellant in their house at Barangay San Cristobal,
San Pablo City. He remembered leaving a cash amounting to P 2,000.00 inside the drawer in their rice
mill.26 Around 10:00 a.m., Bomiel, the victim's neighbor who lived around 15 to 20 meters from the
victim's house, saw appellant leave the house. When appellant passed by his house, Bomiel asked the
former where he was going to, which appellant answered that he was going to Batangas for a medical
treatment. Later, Bomiel saw appellant return to the victim's house and left after a while. When appellant
passed by his house again, Bomiel asked appellant why he had not yet left for Batangas, to which
appellant answered that he was waiting for Kuya Henry and went ahead. After a while, Bomiel saw
appellant again going back to the victim's house.27 Around 11:00 a.m., Henry, who came back from his
store in Dolores, entered their house and found his lifeless wife with several stab wounds lying on a
bamboo bed. Henry saw drawers and coins scattered on the floor, and the drawer, where he put the P
2,000.00 cash which was nowhere to be found, was pulled out.28
Appellant, who was supposed to have gone to Batangas for a medical treatment on the same day, never
came back. In fact, appellant's belongings, which were kept under the bamboo bed where the victim's
body was found lying, were no longer there when the incident was discovered.29 Moreover, when the
victim's brother, Avanzado, went to the house of appellant's uncle in Batangas, appellant was nowhere
to be found. Appellant was later apprehended in October 2000 in Capiz, so Avanzado went to Capiz to
verify this but appellant was already released as the police feared that they might be charged with illegal
detention. Notably, appellant knew that he was being arrested for the crime of robbery with homicide, yet
he did not present himself to the authorities or to the victim's family to establish that he had nothing to do
with the crime. In fact, he was not seen by the victim's family since the incident and it was only on March
25, 2001, after he was again apprehended in Capiz and brought to San Pablo City that Henry saw him at
the police station.30 These circumstances denote flight. The flight of an accused, in the absence of a
credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, for
a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert
his innocence.31
Appellant offered no explanation on why he never returned to his employer after his alleged medical
treatment in Batangas and why he was in Capiz when arrested. In fact, worth quoting was the narration
of the RTC in its decision on what transpired during the hearing of August 10, 2004, thus:
x x x The Court found the accused to be firm in his stand not to present any evidence as both manifested
by his counsel and by himself. The Court therefore ordered the accused Raul Beriber y Fuentes to be
placed on the witness stand and questions were propounded on him by the Court. x x x he reiterated his
stand on waiver to present evidence as his defense; when asked by the Court why, he answered "none";
he does not know of any reason why he should defend himself despite the fact that the charge against
him is very serious and punishable by death; he could not tell of any reason why he would not like to
bring out his defense in this case; he is aware that by not presenting and waiving his right to present
evidence for his defense, he knew that he could be sentenced to death as the Court did.32
Although appellant's silence and refusal to testify, let alone refusal to present evidence, cannot be construed as evidence
of guilt, we have consistently held that the fact that an accused never testified in his defense even in the face of
accusations against him goes against the principle that "the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of wrongdoing
is to express his innocence at the first opportune time."33
Appellant's contention that there is no evidence of robbery is devoid of merit. The element of taking and the existence of
the money stolen by appellant were adequately established by the prosecution. Henry positively testified that he left P
2,000.00 in the drawer in the ricemill in the morning of October 3, 2000 which was no longer found upon discovery of his
wife's lifeless body.34 Moreover, Investigator Demejes testified that when he came to the crime scene, he saw the place
in disarray, i.e., drawers and coins were scattered on the floor, another drawer was pulled out from its original location
and left on a couch; and that a blue tote bag was also seen on top of a table and a passbook on top of the bed.35 Intent

to rob is an internal act, but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. The prosecution
was able to establish that the motive for killing the victim was robbery.
Appellant's argument that it was natural for him to be at the house of the victim at around the time of the incident as he
lives there does not persuade. True, the mere presence of appellant at the scene is inadequate to support the conclusion
that he committed the crime.36 However, his presence there becomes an indicium of his commission of the offense when
coupled with his unexplained act of fleeing from the situs instead of reporting the incident to the police authorities, as well
as with his act of hiding until he was arrested.37 Taken together, the foregoing circumstances are highly indicative of
guilt.38
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01623, which affirmed with modification the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, finding appellant Raul
Beriber y Fuentes@ Jerry Fuentes y Ignacio@ Gerry Beriber @ Bong @ Raul Fuentes, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Robbery with Homicide, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.**
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ***
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Per Special Order No. 1290 dated August 28, 2012.

** Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order
No.1291 dated August 28,2012.
*** Designated Additional Member, per Special Order No. 1299 dated August 28, 2012.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr, with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and
Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 126-140.
2 Penned by Judge Zorayda Herradura-Salcedo; id. at 59-81.
3 Records, p. 15.
4 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 12621-SP (00).
5 Records, p. 15.
6 Id. at 26.
7 CA rollo, pp. 102-108. (Citations omitted.)
8 Records, p. 82.
9 CA rollo, pp. 82-92.
10 Id. at 92.
11 G.R. No. 151198, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 332.
12 Id. at 344-345.
13 CA rollo. pp. 68-69.
14 Records, p. 112.
15 CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
16 Id. at 78-79.
17 Id. at 139-140.
18 Rollo, p. 23.
19 Id. at 25-31.
20 CA rollo, p. 47.
21 People v. Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000, 339 SCRA 381, 394.
22 People v. Uy, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 236, 249, citing People v. Baron, G.R. No.
185209, June 28, 2010, 621 SCRA 646, 656; People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 426-427 (2004), citing
People v. Pedroso, G.R. No. 125158, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 163, 174.

23 Id. at 251, citing Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 164266, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 461, 469-470;
People v. Almoguerra, 461 Phil. 340, 356 (2003).
24 Id., citing Salvador v. People, supra, at 469-470, citing People v. Padua, G.R. No. 169075, February
23, 2007, 516 SCRA 590, 600-601.
25 Id.
26 TSN, August 3, 2001, pp. 4-9.
27 TSN, August 2, 2001, pp. 7-13
28 TSN, August 3, 2001, pp. 5-7, 9.
29 TSN, August 2, 2001, p. 23
30 TSN, August 3, 2001, p. 13.
31 People v. Tonog, Jr., G.R. No. 144497, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 139, 161, citing People v. Diaz,
G.R. No. 133737, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 52.
32 CA rollo, pp. 69-70.
33 People v. Tonog, supra note 31, at 161-162, citing People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 111734-35, June 16,
2000, 333 SCRA 506.
34 TSN, August 3, 2001, p. 9.
35 TSN, July 18, 2001, pp. 4-6.
36 People v. Corre, Jr., G.R. No. 137271, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 165, 180, citing Abad v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 119739, June 18, 1998, 291 SCRA 56.
37 Id., citing People v. Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998, 284 SCRA 79.
38 Id., citing People v. Macuha, G.R. No. 130372, July 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 819.